Quoting Chris Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > * Serge E. Hallyn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Sigh, as much as I would *like* to stay out of this (I don't > > use modules at all on any system where I can avoid it), won't > > it make development - and especially testing - of new lsms > > much more painful and therefore less likely? > > Dev, hopefully not. Testing, well, perhaps. > > > I realize there has been a dearth of new LSMs to date, but if > > for instance a new solaris 10 based capability module were written, > > well, people would want to be able to > > > > rmmod capability > > modprobe cap_prm > > The problem is it's not necessarily even safe to do rmmod at all. > And modprobe may require extra labelling, or extra checks for > unlabelled objects (perhaps not so much for your example).
Right, and given that it's trivial for the author of an LSM which shouldn't be modular to make the LSM a boolean config rather than tristate, it doesn't seem like a good reason to take away the ability to have LSM modules. -serge - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
